The Case of Hartley University

I have attached the Case of Hartley University

I need help answering these questions. I will also need APA references from sources like (Proquest, Eric).

Focus on how the relevant facts either support or do not support the application of the legal theories and arguments. Don't just state a legal doctrine but suggest what facts might cause it to apply. If there is a cause of action based upon Title IX, for example, simply asserting that the legal theory exists is not sufficient. Suggest how specific facts are evidence of gender discrimination as the statute defines it and whether these facts are sufficient to meet the standards of the statute. I also need facts on the arguments without relating them to a specific legal principal or standard is not an effective use of the limited space you have available.

1. Explore the chances of the dissenting Borden board members of preventing the merger between Borden College and the state system.
2. Would the situation be any different if the trustees had based their decision on the fact that they were late for dinner and wanted the meeting where the decision was made to end quickly?
3. Why was the state board justified in denying Robinson Institute a license to operate as a higher education institution? Is there case law that might support his position?
4. Would the Robinson case have been any different if it was a private accreditation agency denying accreditation, instead of a state agency denying a license?
5. Might Robinson be more successful against the city ordinance?
6. Will the suit by Robinson against the Neighborhood Association survive a motion for summary a motion for summary judgment?
7. How would you advise the IRS to decide on the Robinson 501(c)(3) application?
8. Should the court grant the motion for summary judgment by Harley U. in response to the action by the dismissed faculty members?
9. Discuss the merits of the challenge by "Citizens for the Separation of Church and State" against the Kessler J.C. plan.
10. Support Hartley's contention against the city of Fort Dearborn in the football game taxation issue.
11. Outline the case the Justice Department might make against the plan by the Fort Dearborn colleges and universities to limit programs in order to raise tuition.

Attachments

Solution Preview

1. Explore the chances of the dissenting Borden board members of preventing the merger between Borden College and the state system.

The board members who oppose the merger will not be able to successfully prevent the merger between Borden College and the state system because of the fact that a different standard of care applies to board members in regard to decisions they make while sitting on boards at colleges. This corporate standard of care entails that universities are businesses, and the officials must have administrative flexibility to make the decisions that best fits their business structure and model. Therefore, the merger between Borden College and the state system is obviously the best business model since the college is on the brink of insolvency. The standard was established in Corporation of Mercer University v. Smith (1988), by the Supreme Court of Georgia (Law of Higher Education, 2012).

2. Would the situation be any different if the trustees had based their decision on the fact that they were late for dinner and wanted the meeting where the decision was made to end quickly?

This question doesn't warrant any answer because it has no relevancy to existing law. Being late for a dinner or wanted to make decisions quickly is not in accordance with higher education law.

3. Why was the state board justified in denying Robinson Institute a license to operate as a higher education institution? Is there case law that might support his position?

The precedent for the Robinson case lies within several court cases, but one in particular stands out because it is eerily similar to YOUR scenario. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that similar to Robinson Institute, Shelton College had to obtain a license from the state to issue degrees, but because the church's religious beliefs supporting the college did not require attendance at the college as is the case in Robinson institute, this requirement by the state did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. The board was justified in accordance to this precedent because it has a compelling interest in maintaining minimum academic standards while ensuring the integrity of the degrees that it conferred.
The board was justified in denying the license because granting licenses for religious colleges and universities in accordance to all other institutions of higher education is predicated upon the reality that states have the autonomy to impose requirements that may be perceived by administrators at religious colleges or universities as contrary to their beliefs and rights protected under the Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses. ...